Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
New York v. Quarlesgreen2 sentences2016We disagree with the State's argument that the public safety exception established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), applies. 2016We disagree with the State's argument that the public safety exception established in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), applies. | 1 | 5 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2005Defendant made his motion before his first trial; the motion was denied on the basis that the statement fell within the public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. 2005Defendant made his motion before his first trial; the motion was denied on the basis that the statement fell within the public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Crudupgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Crudup, 157 N.C.App. 657 , 661, 580 S.E.2d 21 , 25 (2003) (holding that the "circumstances in this case exceed the narrow scope of the public safety exception [as] [d]efendant was handcuffed[,] ... surrounded by three officers[,] and [t]here was no risk of imminent danger to the public, the officers, or even to the defendant"). 2016See State v. Crudup, 157 N.C.App. 657 , 661, 580 S.E.2d 21 , 25 (2003) (holding that the "circumstances in this case exceed the narrow scope of the public safety exception [as] [d]efendant was handcuffed[,] ... surrounded by three officers[,] and [t]here was no risk of imminent danger to the public, the officers, or even to the defendant"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2005One of those exceptions is the public safety exception, which provides that “questions asked by law enforcement officers to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and limited to information necessary for that purpose are excepted from the Miranda rule.” State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 144 , 446 S.E.2d 579, 587 (1994). 2005One of those exceptions is the public safety exception, which provides that “questions asked by law enforcement officers to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and limited to information necessary for that purpose are excepted from the Miranda rule.” State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 144 , 446 S.E.2d 579, 587 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.